As election results come in, political commentators are likely to dwell on sharp disagreements over energy costs, the war with Iran, support for Israel, and immigration. Those disputes may point to another two years of stalemate between Congress and the White House.
But homelessness could become an area of unexpected agreement, regardless of which party controls Congress. The Trump administration says it wants better outcomes for people without homes and for the wider public. Democrats, meanwhile, have reason to show voters they are taking the crisis seriously, particularly in hard-hit cities such as Seattle and San Francisco.
That kind of shift won’t happen automatically. With a possible Democratic takeover of Congress in view, some homelessness advocacy groups are already pressing lawmakers to reverse HUD’s move toward funding programs based on results.
Most Americans would rather homelessness not be a partisan issue. Severe mental illness and substance use disorder, two major factors in homelessness, affect many people either directly or through someone they know. The crisis touches people of different races and ages, in large cities and small towns alike.
The divide is largely over how to respond. Republicans argue that money should be pulled from programs they consider ineffective and redirected toward treating addiction and mental illness. Democratic advocates, by contrast, defend the Housing First approach, which offers permanent supportive housing without requiring treatment or sobriety, and argue that it needs more funding.
Still, public attitudes are shifting. After watching homelessness grow in their communities for years, people across the political spectrum may be less willing to accept advocates’ assurances without evidence.
A recent report suggests there may be room for both parties to pursue practical changes. The shared goal, at least in principle, is to ease suffering on the streets while making sure public money is used responsibly. Better policy could help more people find housing and rebuild their lives, while limiting waste in federal and state programs.
Much of the federal funding for homelessness is currently measured by inputs: the number of beds a facility has, the staff it employs, or the number of people who pass through its doors.
Yet local organizations that distribute the money often do a poor job of tracking what happens afterward. How many people find work? How many leave with improved health, reconnect with family, or overcome addiction? In many cases, there are no clear answers. Meanwhile, some nonprofit executives earn more even as people remain homeless.
That gap could offer a basis for cooperation. President Trump has called for federal homelessness funding to focus more on results, including addiction and mental health treatment, financial independence, and public safety. Democrats who want to protect vulnerable people could also question whether taxpayer-funded organizations are serving them well, especially when executives benefit while clients continue to struggle.
There are examples of officials from different political backgrounds pursuing similar changes. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, who is not generally considered conservative, has backed reforms tied to measurable outcomes, including treatment requirements, enforcement against street encampments, and a reduction in low-barrier harm-reduction policies. He has also faced opposition from homelessness activists in his city. If Lurie and Trump can find common ground on parts of the issue, lawmakers in Washington may be able to as well.
As lawmakers take stock of the election results, more than 745,000 Americans will have spent the night outdoors. For them, the most important measure of success is whether the government starts counting how many people it helps leave homelessness, rather than simply how much money it spends.
